Satpal Singh And Ors. vs The Indian Construction ...
2013 Latest Caselaw 1033 Del

*            IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                         WP(C) No. 1294/2000 & 1286/2000

%                                                       March 01, 2013

1.    W.P.(C) No.1294/2000

SATPAL SINGH AND ORS.                                    ..... Petitioners
                  Through:               Ms. Maninder Acharya, Advocate.


                          Versus


THE INDIAN CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION LTD. & ORS.
                                            ..... Respondents

Through: Mr. S.K. Jha, Advocate.

2.    W.P.(C) No.1286/2000

SHRI M.S. VERMA AND ORS.                            ..... Petitioners
                  Through:               Ms. Maninder Acharya, Advocate
                                         with Mr. M.S. Verma, petitioner No.1
                                         in person.

                          versus

THE INDIAN CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION LTD. & ORS.

..... Respondents Through: Mr. S.K. Jha, Advocate.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA

To be referred to the Reporter or not?

VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)

1. These two writ petitions are filed by a total of 53 petitioners.

The claim in the writ petitions was that petitioners had got promotion from

the post of Senior Assistant to Section Officer in W.P.(C) No.1286/2000

titled as Shri M.S. Verma and Ors. Vs. The Indian Construction

Corporation Ltd. and Ors. and from the post of Personal Assistant to the

post of Additional Private Secretary in W.P.(C) No.1294/2000 titled as

Satpal Singh and Ors. Vs. The Indian Construction Corporation Ltd. and

Ors., however, since the petitioners had earlier filed a writ petition for

seeking a higher scale of pay in the post of Senior Assistant and which was

allowed, whereby higher scale of pay of Senior Assistant was granted

resulting in the scale of pay of Senior Assistant and Section Officer

becoming the same, petitioners should be granted higher scale of pay in the

post of Section Officer because same scale of pay cannot be there for both

higher and a lower post.

2. I may note at this stage that out of the total of 53 persons in the

two writ petitions, 43 persons have already taken VRS.

3. I have dealt with the aspect of estoppel in detail for dismissing

the connected Writ Petition No.895/1997 titled as Rajiv Mahendru and Anr.

Vs. Chairman-MD, I.R.C.C., New Delhi & Anr. decided on 27.2.2013

inasmuch as the respondent No.1-company was a sick company and is in the

process of winding up after ceasing its business in February, 2000 and ratio

of which judgment qua points 2 & 3 of the grounds urged on behalf of the

respondents as decided therein will squarely apply to the present case. Even

on merits the writ petitions will not lie for the reasons stated hereinafter.

4. Learned counsel for the respondent No.1 during the course of

arguments placed before me the letter dated 20.6.2001 written on behalf of

Under Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Road Transport

and Highways to C.M.D. of respondent No.1 showing that all the petitioners

pursuant to FR 22(1)(a)(i) have got the benefits on account of the anomaly

of their being a same scale of pay for the higher and lower posts of Section

Officer and Senior Assistant respectively. In terms of FR 22(1)(a)(i), if

such an anomaly exists, then, in the higher post the pay scale would

commence taking one increment as having been granted to the employees.

The letter dated 20.6.2001 reads as under:-

          "               Govt. of India
              Ministry of Road Transport & Highways

     NH-11065/3/2001-P&M                                     20 June 2001

     To


                Chairman and Managing Director

IRCC Ltd., Core-6, Floor-6, SCOPE Complex, 7, Lodhi Road, New Delhi-110003

Subject: Implementation of Delhi High Court Judgment in the case of Shri K.P. Grover and others Vs. IRCC Ltd vide Civil Writ Petition No.2179/91 and Delhi High Court Double Bench Judgment vide LPA No.2/99; Representation from Shri M S Verma.

Sir, I am directed to refer to IRCC's letter No.701170 dated 6.3.2000 on the subject mentioned above seeking views of this Ministry. The case has been examined in consultation with Ministry of Finance (Deptt. of Expenditure) and the Deptt. of Personnel and Training and it has been decided that the case be regulated in terms of Deptt of Expenditure OM 169/2/2000-IC dated 24.11.2000 (copy enclosed) which provides, inter-alia, that where both the feeder and promotion posts carry identical scales of pay but the promotion posts carry higher duties and responsibilities, the benefits of FR 22(1)(a)(i) may be extended. The total financial implications may be worked out by the Corporation and the expenditure on this account borne from their own resources. Necessary action may be taken accordingly.

This has the approval of Ministry of Finance vide U.O.No.163/2001/IC dated 22.05.2001 and Finance Wing's U.O. No.604-TF-II-01 dated 19th June 2001.

(H.K. ROY) Under Secretary to the Govt. of India 3710450 Encl: As above"

5. On behalf of respondent No.1, it is stated that pursuant to the

letter dated 20.6.2001, implementation was done by the respondent No.1

with respect to the petitioners and the petitioners have been granted one

increment in the higher post treating that as the beginning of the scale of pay

in the higher post of Section Officer.

6. On a query being put to the counsel for the petitioners, the

counsel for the petitioners states that most of the petitioners are old and not

contacting her and for that reason she could not inform the Court of the

existence of the letter dated 20.6.2001 and the petitioners having received

benefits pursuant to FR 22(1)(a)(i). She also states that none of the

petitioners have challenged the benefit granted to them in terms of the letter

dated 20.6.2001, if the same was less or not as per law. Today, one of the

petitioners, Mr. M.S. Verma is present, and he states that not only he but

also the other petitioners have received the consequential benefits as granted

by the letter dated 20.6.2001 and no legal challenge has ever been made

either to the letter dated 20.6.2001 by any one of the petitioners or with

respect to consequence thereof on the petitioners in terms of FR22 (1) (a)

(i).

7. The legal effect of the above would be that each of the

petitioners had taken a particular benefit for the cause of action which is

alleged in the present writ petitions and have not challenged the letter dated

20.6.2001 which gave them lesser benefits, and therefore petitioners are

quite clearly estopped in pursuing these writ petitions having taken the

monetary benefits without any objection pursuant to the letter dated

20.6.2001.

8. In view of this matter since the main relief does not survive,

writ petitions are accordingly dismissed. I may also state that otherwise also

the writ petitions are also liable to be dismissed on the points 2 and 3 on the

basis of which the Writ Petition No.895/1997 was dismissed by me. No

costs.

VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J MARCH 01, 2013 Ne